200 LB Man Question???

John Creighton · 2004-12-20 12:29:23

Nothing would happen Errorist. Not one thing. The very, very small difference in air pressure would be completly overwhelmed the resistance to motion due to viscosity. There would be no air flow at all. If all you do is seal one end of the pipe, that won't change the pressure anyway.

This is probably true. However if there was any flow however insignificant I still think it would be an interesting physical effect.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-20 14:57:10

Interesting perhaps, but if there is any it will beyond doubt be so small that it would be really difficult to detect much less exploit.

ERRORIST · 2004-12-20 15:59:04

How much energy would it take to pump the water back from the Equator to the pole down hill to lets say 1500 feet above sea level at that location? Perhaps, on a mountain at the south pole? Remember, you would be pumping it down hill.Then let it drop the rest of the way down a pipe to a turbine.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-20 16:04:29

Drop? It won't flow differently at this latitude then another, it doesn't get pumped "down" hill at all. The miniscule 13 mile altitude difference is completly lost against the huge size of he Earth.

There is also the viscous force of the water against the pipe would eliminate any difference.

Errorist, are you even contemplating how hard it would be to make a 10,000km long pipe?

ERRORIST · 2004-12-20 16:10:34

Sure, it would be much more easy here on Earth than in space.
Shoot give me the money and I'll start to build it myself tomorrow.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-20 16:15:05

Errorist, this is another terrible idea for a variety of reasons... there is viscosity, there is rotational inertia to overcome, and the difference in the curvature of the Earth is so slight that you couldn't even build your pipe accuratly enough.

ERRORIST · 2004-12-20 16:46:37

Well, you won't have to over come gravity that has already been done by the rotational velocity of the Earth. Friction and rotational force should be the only two problems left. As far as construction it could be done easy.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-20 17:34:08

The "rotational" part is the velocity you seek to use.

The problem is simple inertia. The water is moving fast around the globe as it rotates. The polar caps are not.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-20 20:56:37

Think about it this way...

You have a bowl attached to a potters' wheel or a reccord player. You spin the bowl around on its symmetric axis, pour in a little water, and what happens?

The water will defy gravity and "climb" the walls of the bowl to settle on the sides instead of running down to the bottom.

It would work much the same way with the Earth, except instead of the walls of the bowl holding the water inside and keeping it from flying off, gravity would hold it to the outside instead.

Since the difference in gravity from the poles and the equator is so small, but the spinning of the Earth is so fast, then the water won't flow "down hill" to the poles at all.

ERRORIST · 2004-12-21 07:32:00

I know it won't do it naturally. That is why you pump it down hill. All you have to do is overcome the friction and the rotational velocity forces. It would be like what some hydroelectric dam companies do at night, they pump water up hill back to the reservoir. However, this is a little different we would be puming from the reservoir(ocean) down hill to an altitude of possibly 16,000+ ft to the highest mountain in Antarctica. 16,000+ ft gives you alot of head pressure and potential energy once the water has made it to that location. I am sure more than enough energy than it took to pump the water there from the Equator.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-21 10:43:43

"is why you pump it down hill. All you have to do is overcome the friction and the rotational velocity forces."

Which are so great that the "downhill" effect is essentially zero, and will require HUGE amounts of energy to overcome the other forces.

"16,000+ ft gives you alot of head pressure and potential energy once the water has made it to that location. I am sure more than enough energy than it took to pump the water there from the Equator."

Errorist, do I have to spell out all the thermodynamics for every single idea you come up with? How about YOU consider the thermodynamics next time before posting your idea... Your idea is sounding like an Escher painting and "I am sure" that you haven't really thought about your idea, but you posted it anyway to try and get us to do the basic thinking for you.

If you pump the water NET down hill, then it stands to reason if you try and pump it back, it would be NET UP hill. This ain't rocket science! 13mi - 16,000ft = ~53,000ft that you would be taking advantage of to get DOWN to the poles, but you would have to fight to get UP to the equator!

In any event, the small potential energy difference of a 53,000ft delta is tiny compared to the friction and inertial forces you would have to fight BOTH ways, which would be more then enough to have a net LOSS of energy.

Water dams only pump water uphill as a storage method, and there is a net loss of energy, they just have more of it on hand when they need it.

ERRORIST · 2004-12-21 15:20:31

If you pump the water NET down hill, then it stands to reason if you try and pump it back, it would be NET UP hill. This ain't rocket science! 13mi - 16,000ft = ~53,000ft that you would be taking advantage of to get DOWN to the poles, but you would have to fight to get UP to the equator!

Not pumping it back to the Equator. Once you have pumped it down hill to 16000 + ft elevation is where you drop it the rest of the way to the ocean inside a pipe. Then before it reaches the bottom near the surface of the ocean is where you place your turbine. After the water has done its work there it just simply flows back to the ocean where it will eventually make its way back to the Equator via rotational forces of the Earth.Remember, from the time you started pumping the water to the pole it is flowing down hill all the way to the 16000+ ft elevation.It has not traveled one inch upward the whole journey.

ERRORIST · 2004-12-21 15:22:45

If you pump the water NET down hill, then it stands to reason if you try and pump it back, it would be NET UP hill. This ain't rocket science! 13mi - 16,000ft = ~53,000ft that you would be taking advantage of to get DOWN to the poles, but you would have to fight to get UP to the equator!

Not pumping it back to the Equator. Once you have pumped it down hill to 16000 + ft elevation is where you drop it the rest of the way to the ocean inside a pipe. Then before it reaches the bottom near the surface of the ocean is where you place your turbine. After the water has done its work there it just simply flows back to the ocean where it will eventually make its way back to the Equator via rotational forces of the Earth.Remember, from the time you started pumping the water to the pole it is flowing down hill all the way to the 16000+ ft elevation.It has not traveled one inch upward the whole journey.OOPS DID it twice!

Euler · 2004-12-21 17:52:11

If you pump the water NET down hill, then it stands to reason if you try and pump it back, it would be NET UP hill. This ain't rocket science! 13mi - 16,000ft = ~53,000ft that you would be taking advantage of to get DOWN to the poles, but you would have to fight to get UP to the equator!

There is no net down hill at all. Water at sea level at the poles has the same amount of potential energy as water at sea level at the equator.

ERRORIST · 2004-12-22 07:51:22

Euler,
So what do you think? Could this generate more energy then it takes to pump the water down (literally) to the pole? Remember, we are not going to pump it back to the Equator as Gcnrevenger seems to think. The Earths rotational velocity is.

GraemeSkinner · 2004-12-22 07:55:49

Could this generate more energy then it takes to pump the water down to the pole

To put it simply, no.

Graeme

ERRORIST · 2004-12-22 08:03:06

I bet it will because we are not pumping against gravity to get it to the polar regions.

GraemeSkinner · 2004-12-22 08:07:12

I bet it will because we are not pumping against gravity to get it to the polar regions.

How much is the bet?

Graeme

ERRORIST · 2004-12-22 08:09:18

A million pounds of carbon Nanotube material. Or better yet how about I wager one of my finest error coins? Ya'll would love this coin on this forum. It depicts the astronaut that had the accident in his space suit. It is an authentic USA Ohio error quarter made by the US Mint.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-22 09:22:52

I bet it will because we are not pumping against gravity to get it to the polar regions.

And I bet that you are really hard to get along with in the flesh since you don't listen to anyone.

Lets review:

-The delta in gravity of only a dozen kilometers or two over a distance of 10,000km is for intents and purposes zero. This is nothing at all like a water dam because of the extremely long flow path.

-Water on the equator in the glass on your desk is not standing still: it is wizzing around the Earth at high speed with its rotation. This rotation will fight the pumping of water to the poles.

-Water nor any liquid travels through any channel without any friction. There is the friction force on water in the pipe that resists its motion. If your pipe has a shallow enough angle, which yours does, there wouldn't be any water flow because of this force.

To summarize: Friction + Inertia >> Gravity Delta
Which means you won't make any energy at all.

ERRORIST · 2004-12-22 09:31:09

-Water nor any liquid travels through any channel without any friction. There is the friction force on water in the pipe that resists its motion. If your pipe has a shallow enough angle, which yours does, there wouldn't be any water flow because of this force.

Exactly the reason we have to pump it down hill.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-22 09:38:34

Errorist, LISTEN!

The friction force is STRONGER then the small gravity delta. As in more powerful than. The water will just stick to the inside of the pipe and not go anywhere. Even if the pipe is ever so slightly "down hill."

The water is sticking to the walls of the pipe, it would be like putting pancake syrup into a straw, gravity wouldn't be able to budge it.

ERRORIST · 2004-12-22 09:59:34

The water is sticking to the walls of the pipe, it would be like putting pancake syrup into a straw, gravity wouldn't be able to budge it.

Exactly the reason we have to PUMP IT downhill.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-22 10:00:39

*sighs*

Which is exactly why it will take more energy to move the water to the polar moutain then you could extract by letting it "fall" from the moutain to a lake at its base.

It would really help if you at least tried to consider the thermodynamics of your crazy ideas before trying to defend them.

ERRORIST · 2004-12-22 10:12:50

Which is exactly why it will take more energy to move the water to the polar moutain then you could extract by letting it "fall" from the moutain to a lake at its base.

It would really help if you at least tried to consider the thermodynamics of your crazy ideas before trying to defend them.

I would need the math explained to me why it won't work? Logically, what you are saying doesn't make sense to me.Who will win the coin on this one??

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-12-20 12:29:23

Re: 200 LB Man Question???

#27 2004-12-20 14:57:10

Re: 200 LB Man Question???

#28 2004-12-20 15:59:04

Re: 200 LB Man Question???

#29 2004-12-20 16:04:29

Re: 200 LB Man Question???

#30 2004-12-20 16:10:34

Re: 200 LB Man Question???

#31 2004-12-20 16:15:05

Re: 200 LB Man Question???

#32 2004-12-20 16:46:37

Re: 200 LB Man Question???

#33 2004-12-20 17:34:08

Re: 200 LB Man Question???

#34 2004-12-20 20:56:37

Re: 200 LB Man Question???

#35 2004-12-21 07:32:00

Re: 200 LB Man Question???

#36 2004-12-21 10:43:43

Re: 200 LB Man Question???

#37 2004-12-21 15:20:31

Re: 200 LB Man Question???

#38 2004-12-21 15:22:45

Re: 200 LB Man Question???

#39 2004-12-21 17:52:11

Re: 200 LB Man Question???

#40 2004-12-22 07:51:22

Re: 200 LB Man Question???

#41 2004-12-22 07:55:49

Re: 200 LB Man Question???

#42 2004-12-22 08:03:06

Re: 200 LB Man Question???

#43 2004-12-22 08:07:12

Re: 200 LB Man Question???

#44 2004-12-22 08:09:18

Re: 200 LB Man Question???

#45 2004-12-22 09:22:52

Re: 200 LB Man Question???

#46 2004-12-22 09:31:09

Re: 200 LB Man Question???

#47 2004-12-22 09:38:34

Re: 200 LB Man Question???

#48 2004-12-22 09:59:34

Re: 200 LB Man Question???

#49 2004-12-22 10:00:39

Re: 200 LB Man Question???

#50 2004-12-22 10:12:50

Re: 200 LB Man Question???

Board footer